Tag:

military

Airman & Spouse Accused of $11M Fraud to Fund Lavish Lifestyle in Tucson

by James Carter Senior News Editor February 23, 2026

written by James Carter Senior News Editor

TUCSON, Ariz. – A Davis-Monthan Air Force Base staff sergeant and his husband are facing federal charges after authorities allege they defrauded the U.S. Department of War out of more than $11 million. The scheme, prosecutors say, involved the fraudulent purchase and resale of medical devices, with the illicit proceeds used to fund a lavish lifestyle that included a million-dollar home and luxury vehicles.

Staff Sgt. Richard Ramroop, 35 and Manuel Madrid, 32, are accused of conspiracy to commit theft of government property, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The indictment details how the couple allegedly used the funds to purchase a residence in Tucson in February 2024 for $1,000,000, a 2024 Porsche Cayenne Sport Utility Vehicle for $141,443.34, and a BMW i7 Sport Utility Vehicle for $195,397.59.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, the fraudulent activity spanned from 2022 through 2025. Bank accounts controlled by Ramroop and Madrid allegedly received over $11 million through wire transfers and Automated Clearing House (ACH) deposits from companies involved in reselling medical test strips and devices. The diverted medical devices themselves cost the Department of War over $3 million, according to court records.

“The defendants allegedly stole millions in taxpayer dollars from the U.S. Department of War to bankroll a lavish lifestyle, diverting critical resources away from their intended purpose,” said U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine in a statement. “Every dollar taken through fraud is a dollar denied to the mission it was meant to support. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our federal and local law enforcement partners will hold accountable any individual who profits illegally at the expense of the American people.”

Airman Allegedly Used Position to Facilitate Scheme

Prosecutors allege that Ramroop, employed as a pharmacist at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, exploited his position to carry out the scheme. The indictment claims he purchased thousands of medical devices using taxpayer money and then resold them for personal profit. The Department of War, which includes the Department of Defense, incurred significant losses as a result of these diverted supplies.

The investigation was led by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). The IRS office in Tucson provides assistance with tax-related issues and investigates financial crimes.

Potential Penalties for the Charges

If convicted on all counts, Ramroop and Madrid face significant prison sentences. Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Government Property carries a maximum penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment. Each conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Wire Fraud carries a maximum penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment. Finally, each conviction for Money Laundering carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office – District of Arizona, led by Timothy Courchaine, is prosecuting the case. The office comprises approximately 180 assistant U.S. Attorneys and 160 support staff across locations in Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, and Flagstaff.

The case is ongoing, and the next steps involve court proceedings and potential trial dates. Authorities have not yet released details regarding asset forfeiture or the recovery of the funds allegedly obtained through the fraudulent scheme. Further updates will be provided as they turn into available.

Share this story with others and let us recognize your thoughts in the comments below.

February 23, 2026 0 comments

News

Europe’s Defense: Time for Strategic Autonomy | Project Syndicate

by February 23, 2026

written by

Brussels – European defense ministers are grappling with a shifting security landscape as the United States increasingly distances itself from its traditional leadership role within NATO. The absence of U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from Thursday’s gathering of defense ministers in Brussels, following Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s absence from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in December, has underscored growing concerns about Washington’s commitment to the alliance.

While European allies publicly downplayed the significance of the U.S. Officials’ absences, acknowledging the demands on their schedules, the pattern has fueled a quiet reassessment of defense strategies across the continent. Icelandic Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir remarked, “Of course, it’s always better that the ministers attend here, but I would not describe it as a bad signal.” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius echoed this sentiment, stating, “Each of us has a full agenda. And one time the American defense minister is here, and one time not, so it’s his decision and his duties he has to fulfill.”

The shift in U.S. Policy, formalized in a recent White House National Security Strategy document, signals a clear rejection of the post-World War II framework of American leadership in Europe. The document, described as prioritizing “America First,” reportedly expresses contempt for European leaders and suggests a diminished U.S. Role in maintaining the continent’s security. According to the document, “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.”

This evolving dynamic has prompted European nations to accelerate efforts toward “strategic autonomy” – the ability to independently address security challenges without relying on the United States. The pursuit of this autonomy is not necessarily framed as a rejection of NATO, but rather as a pragmatic response to the perceived unreliability of U.S. Support. European leaders are increasingly willing to assert their own interests, even when they diverge from those of the Trump administration, as evidenced by a growing willingness to say “no” to U.S. Demands.

The changing geopolitical landscape also includes a re-evaluation of traditional alliances and potential partnerships. A key element of this re-evaluation involves a potential re-engagement with one of NATO’s leading military powers, a move that would signal a commitment to bolstering European defense capabilities independent of U.S. Influence. The need for such a shift was highlighted by a recent policy document outlining a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, suggesting a focus on U.S. Dominance in the Western Hemisphere rather than a global security role.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte met with U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby at NATO headquarters on February 12, 2026, in a session of the North Atlantic Council. The meeting occurred amidst ongoing discussions about burden-sharing and the future of the alliance, with European allies increasingly taking on a larger share of the responsibility for defending the continent. The outcome of these discussions, and the extent to which European nations will pursue independent defense strategies, remains to be seen.

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 20, 2026, saw discussions between French President Emmanuel Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump, as well as between Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. These meetings took place against a backdrop of growing tensions between the U.S. And its European allies, with Trump openly questioning the value of the alliance and demanding greater financial contributions from European members. Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney also participated in the forum, adding another voice to the debate over the future of transatlantic security.

February 23, 2026 0 comments

world

China’s J-35 Fighter: Can It Compete with the F-35?

by Omar El Sayed - World Editor February 22, 2026

written by Omar El Sayed - World Editor

Beijing is actively marketing its J-35 fifth-generation fighter jet to potential buyers in the Asia-Pacific region, but faces significant competition from the established US F-35 and more affordable alternatives. The push to sell the J-35, showcased at the Singapore Airshow this month, highlights China’s growing ambition to become a major player in the global arms market, though analysts suggest political and economic factors will heavily influence its success.

The J-35A, the air force variant of the jet, was displayed with a half-size model at the airshow by China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC), representing the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), the country’s largest military aerospace firm, according to the South China Morning Post. This presentation signals a concerted effort by China to expand its defense exports, but questions remain about the aircraft’s appeal given the existing dominance of the F-35.

Developed over more than a decade by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, a subsidiary of AVIC, the J-35A officially entered service with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) last year, following its debut in a military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. As China’s second fifth-generation fighter – the J-20 is the first, but currently not cleared for export – the J-35 is widely considered to be Beijing’s answer to Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Interesting Engineering reports.

Competition and Interoperability Concerns

While the J-35 offers potential advantages for nations seeking to reduce reliance on Western military supply chains, boasting advanced avionics and stealth features, it faces challenges in interoperability. Liselotte Odgaard, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, noted that the F-35 benefits from a “mature Western weapons ecosystem” and seamless integration with US-allied intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, as well as joint command-and-control networks. This established infrastructure provides a significant advantage for the American-made jet.

Timothy Heath, a senior defense researcher at the Rand Corporation, suggests that while China has narrowed the gap with the US in fifth-generation aircraft development, the F-35 remains superior for long-range operations and collaborative missions with allies. He noted the J-35 may be faster and potentially more maneuverable, but the F-35 is designed for broader operational roles, Interesting Engineering reports.

Regional Dynamics and Existing Alliances

Several US allies in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, already operate the F-35. Japan recently added the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing variant, to its fleet, enhancing its naval capabilities amid rising regional tensions. This existing investment in the F-35 and the strong alliances underpinning it create a significant hurdle for the J-35 to overcome.

Bence Nemeth, a senior lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, explained that the J-35 is most likely to attract countries that lack access to the F-35, desire reduced dependence on the US, or cannot afford the F-35’s lifecycle costs. However, he also emphasized that alliance politics play a dominant role in defense procurement in the Asia-Pacific, making the F-35 the “default choice” for US allies and partners.

Alternative Options and Future Prospects

Beyond the F-35, the J-35 also faces competition from more affordable options, such as South Korea’s FA-50, used by the Philippines, and Sweden’s JAS 39 Gripen, operated by Thailand. South Korea’s KF-21 fighter, featuring stealth technology and planned fifth-generation upgrades, could further limit the J-35’s export potential in the region.

China’s potential advantages include more flexible financing options and less stringent political conditions, but analysts suggest the J-35’s software upgrade and sustainment systems are less mature than those of its competitors. The success of the J-35 will likely depend on China’s ability to address these concerns and offer a compelling package that balances cost, capability, and political considerations.

The coming years will reveal whether China can successfully establish the J-35 as a viable alternative in the international market. Continued development and refinement of the aircraft, coupled with strategic diplomatic efforts, will be crucial for Beijing to gain traction against the established dominance of the F-35 and other competing platforms.

What are your thoughts on China’s growing military aviation industry? Share your comments below.

February 22, 2026 0 comments

world

US Military Strikes Boat, Killing 3, Claims Drug Trafficking Link – No Evidence Provided

by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief February 21, 2026

written by Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief

The United States military conducted an attack on a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Friday, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) stated the operation, described as a “lethal kinetic strike,” targeted a boat believed to be involved in drug trafficking along a known narcotrafficking route. The incident is the latest in a series of similar actions authorized by the Trump administration, sparking international debate over the legality and morality of such interventions in international waters.

This latest strike brings the total number of people killed in U.S. Military operations against vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea to at least 148, across approximately 43 incidents since early September. While officials maintain these operations are crucial to disrupting the flow of illicit narcotics, the lack of transparency and the rising death toll have drawn criticism from Latin American leaders, legal scholars, and human rights organizations.

Escalating Concerns Over Extraterritorial Actions

SOUTHCOM has not publicly released evidence directly linking the three individuals killed on Friday to drug trafficking activities. This lack of transparency is a central point of contention for critics who argue the U.S. Military is effectively carrying out extrajudicial killings in areas where it lacks jurisdiction. The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, stated that the U.S. Military’s announcements of these attacks amount to a confession of “murder of civilians at sea,” calling for accountability through U.S. Or international justice systems.

A video clip released on social media by SOUTHCOM appears to show the aftermath of the attack, depicting a stationary boat with outboard engines erupting in flames and drifting after being struck. Earlier this week, SOUTHCOM reported conducting three similar attacks in the Pacific and Caribbean, resulting in 11 additional fatalities.

Allegations of Targeting Survivors

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for targeting of survivors following initial strikes. Reports indicate that the first attack authorized in September 2025 may have included a follow-up strike against individuals clinging to wreckage. Legal experts suggest that deliberately targeting survivors of a shipwreck would constitute a crime. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Admiral Frank Bradley have faced scrutiny in connection with these reports, though details remain contested.

The focus on maritime drug trafficking has also drawn criticism, particularly given the primary route for illicit drugs entering the United States. Critics question why the Trump administration is prioritizing interdiction at sea when fentanyl, a major driver of overdose deaths in the U.S., is predominantly smuggled across the land border with Mexico.

Broader Implications and International Response

The U.S. Military’s actions are occurring within the context of Operation Martillo, a multinational effort to counter illicit drug trafficking in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Operation Martillo aims to disrupt transnational criminal organizations by targeting coastal waters along the Central American isthmus. However, the unilateral nature of the recent U.S. Strikes and the lack of due process are fueling tensions with regional partners.

The enhanced counter narcotics operations are supported by U.S. Southern Command’s increased presence, as outlined in SOUTHCOM Enhanced Counter Narcotics Operations. This initiative aims to bolster whole-of-government and international efforts to combat drug trafficking organizations.

The legal basis for these operations remains contested. International law generally prohibits the employ of force in international waters without a clear legal justification, such as self-defense or a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. Government has argued its actions are justified under the right to self-defense, claiming drug trafficking poses a national security threat. However, this argument has been met with skepticism by legal experts who point to the lack of an imminent threat and the absence of due process.

As the Trump administration continues to authorize these strikes, the international community will be watching closely for any escalation or changes in policy. The long-term implications of these actions for U.S. Relations with Latin American countries and the broader international legal order remain uncertain. Further scrutiny of the evidence supporting these operations and a commitment to transparency will be crucial in addressing the growing concerns surrounding these controversial military interventions.

What comes next will likely involve continued legal challenges and diplomatic pressure on the U.S. Government to justify its actions and adhere to international law. The debate over the effectiveness and ethical implications of these operations is expected to intensify as the death toll continues to rise.

Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.

February 21, 2026 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts